Differences Between Into The Wild Book And Book

Submitted By durazo42
Words: 973
Pages: 4

Andrew Durazo
Into The Wild

Reading the novel, "Into the Wild" by Jon Krakauer and then watching it in a movie format by Sean Penn, there were obviously similarities and differences even though the film was adapted from the book. The story is mostly the same from the book and the movie about Christopher McCandless’s journey into the wild and his death that became of it. Sean Penn took a different spin by not telling some of the important details, and then putting others in that weren’t in the book.

Some of the dialog from the book is in the film but not to fully. It goes to show when two people tell the same story, it’s almost impossible to have it exactly the same since they’re telling it from different perspectives. The first noticeable difference was that the book was written from the author’s point of view as he tells the story of Chris based on interviews with family and friends and the movie was narrated by the character that played Chris’s sister.

In the novel, it tells of Chris’s parents visiting the bus shortly after he died and in the movie, that piece is left out. Penn and the movie crew shot the movie in 36 locations where McCandless traveled, but that is not including the Alaskan bus where he passed away, since he felt it would be an invasion of privacy to have the whole crew down there. Some of the relationships that he encountered are in the film, but not mentioned in the book. In both the book and the movie, the story goes back and forth between past and present, and both used labels to indicate sections. Finally, the film has the use of visuals and music that the book obviously cannot capture.

At one point I questioned why Krakauer told of his own journey to climb the Devil's Thumb, but now feel that was helpful to me in having a better insight of the journey it would be. I especially liked that the book and movie had people involved in telling the story that were really invested and deeply touched by what happened to Chris and were able to convey that message to their audience. The scenery, the plot, the music, and the acting were all great in the movie.

The book was a good read and I got a lot from it, but together with the movie, it gave me a clearer image of what Chris faced and it made it seem more realistic to me. I can’t say I liked one more than the other since they complement each other very well. Overall, both did well to shed some light on Chris’s life and I would highly recommend both the book and movie, “Into the Wild” to audiences of all ages for leisure reading and viewing.

When I first heard about Chris McCandless going into the wild and dying in Alaska, the first thing I thought was, "Who could he have hurt by doing this to himself?" Chris's parents are who he hurt the most. I read about Chris's thoughts on his parents and I got a good perspective on how he thought of them and why he wanted to get as far away from them as possible. He just did not like being told what to do all of the time. His parents were only looking out for him and trying to teach him how to live a good life. What Chris failed at doing with his parents was looking at why his parents were telling him what to do. They were telling him things only for his benefit, which is what all good parents do. Sure, I have had times when I got mad at my parents for ordering me around, but I know